This is how I explain it.

This is a discussion on This is how I explain it. within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; We're hot in the middle of election season and sooner or later the conversation turns to 2A rights and gun control. I have one simple ...

This is how I explain it.

We're hot in the middle of election season and sooner or later the conversation turns to 2A rights and gun control. I have one simple way to express my opinion. Here's the scenario I give;

How would you feel if you left your polling place and were met with protesters telling you that you shouldn't be voting. Strangers telling you that you probably aren't smart enough to pick the best candidate and you should leave those choices up to more qualified people who would make the best decisions for everyone.

Not one single person would agree that we should have restrictions on voting.

So why does anyone want to have restrictions on my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

It's in The Bill of Rights. This is the second amendment to the Constitution. Who are you to take that from me?

We're hot in the middle of election season and sooner or later the conversation turns to 2A rights and gun control. I have one simple way to express my opinion. Here's the scenario I give;

How would you feel if you left your polling place and were met with protesters telling you that you shouldn't be voting. Strangers telling you that you probably aren't smart enough to pick the best candidate and you should leave those choices up to more qualified people who would make the best decisions for everyone.

Not one single person would agree that we should have restrictions on voting.

So why does anyone want to have restrictions on my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

It's in The Bill of Rights. This is the second amendment to the Constitution. Who are you to take that from me?

Can anyone (reasonably) argue with that logic?

I'd try...I think... but I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make.

We're hot in the middle of election season and sooner or later the conversation turns to 2A rights and gun control. I have one simple way to express my opinion. Here's the scenario I give;

How would you feel if you left your polling place and were met with protesters telling you that you shouldn't be voting. Strangers telling you that you probably aren't smart enough to pick the best candidate and you should leave those choices up to more qualified people who would make the best decisions for everyone.

Not one single person would agree that we should have restrictions on voting.

So why does anyone want to have restrictions on my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

It's in The Bill of Rights. This is the second amendment to the Constitution. Who are you to take that from me?

Can anyone (reasonably) argue with that logic?

Since the right to vote, unlike the right to bear arms is never mentioned in the Bill of Rights, you are comparing apples to oranges in your argument. The right to bear arms was regarded as inherent by the framers of the Constitution. The right to vote was not.

Since the right to vote, unlike the right to bear arms is never mentioned in the Bill of Rights, you are comparing apples to oranges in your argument. The right to bear arms was regarded as inherent by the framers of the Constitution. The right to vote was not.

Apples to oranges, maybe, but I think his point is using a freedom that everybody enjoys and trying to make them understand how they'd feel if that was taken away.

Since the right to vote, unlike the right to bear arms is never mentioned in the Bill of Rights, you are comparing apples to oranges in your argument. The right to bear arms was regarded as inherent by the framers of the Constitution. The right to vote was not.

My point being.... No one would dare argue with voting even though it's not specifically singled out in the Bill of Rights, but no one has an issue with restricting a Right that is identified.

My point being.... No one would dare argue with voting even though it's not specifically singled out in the Bill of Rights, but no one has an issue with restricting a Right that is identified.

People will dare to argue anything you care to bring up. Voting rights have been argued extensively throughout our nation's history, from the time when only adult white male property owners above the age of majority were allowed to vote, to where we are today.

Some (including myself, depending on my mood) would still argue that voting should have restrictions, so I'm not sure if comparing the 2A to voting is the right path to walk down.

I would just stick with the fact that the 2A was foundational in our country's inception and was included in the Bill of Rights to protect our natural rights, not provide them, and the historical context favors personal gun ownership for self protection (against the government) without enumerated limitations. Therefore, any limitations that are proposed must not hinder a civilian's right to reasonably (a spork is not a valid defensive weapon, for instance) protect themselves from said government should such a need arise.

You can move on to why or how a person might need to defend themselves against the government if it moves in that direction, but that's the purpose of the amendment.

I look at it more like this, the antis have a right to exercise their freedom of speech given to them by the same people and doccument that gives me the right to bear arms. They want to take our rights by exercising theirs. Its irony at its finest.

Never make the mistake of trying to use logic with an anti. It doesn't work. You'd stand a better chance of turning their own argument around on them. "I carry for the children, to be able to keep them safe from the bad people of the world".

Never make the mistake of trying to use logic with an anti. It doesn't work. You'd stand a better chance of turning their own argument around on them. "I carry for the children, to be able to keep them safe from the bad people of the world".